beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay 60,497,338 won to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from July 31, 2014 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 20, 2007, the Defendant: (a) purchased B apartment B apartment 105 and 903 at purchase price of KRW 59,50,000 from the Eastyang Construction Industry; (b) borrowed from the Plaintiff for the payment of intermediate payment of KRW 239,80,000 on June 20, 2008; and (c) borrowed from the Plaintiff for the payment of intermediate payment of KRW 59,950,00 on March 10, 2010.
B. On December 24, 2013, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, the Plaintiff transferred each of the above loans to a limited-liability company specializing in the C&C securitization and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above loans on January 23, 2014. On December 30, 2014, the limited-liability company specialized in C&C securitization transferred each of the above loans to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above loans on February 4, 2014.
C. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor paid KRW 364,711,792, out of the principal and interest of each of the above loans through the exercise of security rights to real estate trusted by the Dongyang Construction Industry, a guarantor of each of the above loans, to an international trust company, and was not reimbursed for KRW 60,497,338.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 4, Gap evidence 5-1 to 5, Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff at a rate of 20% per annum from July 31, 2014 to the day of full payment of the principal and interest of the loan, which is the day following the day of partial repayment of the principal and interest of the loan.
3. As such, the plaintiff's claim by the succeeding intervenor is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.